Asylum in
the EU: the beginning of the end?"[Our] focus should be on ensuring
that forced migration is for a temporary period only [The]
international community must take action to resolve conflicts,
and human rights abuse and commit to post conflict reconstruction
to enable sustainable return. There is no international law permitting
such intervention and it is still highly controversial. Nevertheless,
refugee flows have been used in the past to justify intervention,
for example in Kosovo As a last resort, there needs to
be military intervention."

(UK government "restricted policy",
draft Final report, 5 February 2003)At tomorrow's informal meeting of EU Justice
and Home Affairs Ministers (28 March 2003) in Greece, the UK
government's "new vision for refugees" will be discussed.
The plan proposes the "external processing" of asylum
claims and "protection in the region" for refugees
- in short, the creation of camps in eastern Europe, Africa,
Turkey and the Middle East. The UK proposals have not yet been
published. This analysis is based on a draft of the UK proposals
(dated 5 February) obtained by Statewatch (1).

Background

In Britain, with tabloid driven racism against refugees and
asylum-seekers reaching new levels (following calls from the
Conservative party that all asylum-seekers be locked up indefinitely
for security vetting) a "confidential" policy document
was leaked to the press in early February.

The government's "new vision for refugees" is a
"global network of safe havens" - "camps whose
prime purpose is to provide a place of safety and process claims".
The underlying principle is "protection not migration"
- there will be "no need to flee". However, the UK
proposals offer no proposals as to how this will be achieved,
beyond the continuation of existing humanitarian and development
programmes.

In the meantime, it is proposed to accommodate those still
fleeing conflict, poverty, persecution or environmental disaster
in UNHCR administered camps, if not in the actual country they
are fleeing, then in the region. All will be entitled to six
months temporary protection while their asylum applications were
being processed. The fraction that actually manage to reach the
EU to make an application would be sent immediately to a safe
haven in Europe - but outside the EU - for processing (possibly
the Ukraine post-EU enlargement or even Albania in the short-term
(2)).

"Narrowest" definition of a refugee

Successful applicants for asylum will be entitled to protection
in the EU or other developed countries. However, "resettlement
cannot be a right" and the definition of refugee should
be "at its narrowest" for long-term assistance, resettlement
and local integration. Internally displaced refugees (IDPs) -
there are some 20 million worldwide - will not have access to
the safe havens. There will be "some form of internal policing
to avoid internal violence and prevent entry of combatants",
though refugees will be "free to leave" - but will
then be ineligible for any form of international protection elsewhere.

What level of protection?

The legitimacy of the plans is seen to rest on the camps'
provision of a level of protection in compliance with the European
Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on refugees.
The document sees the crucial issue as whether the safe havens
will be seen by the Courts as compatible with Article 3 of the
Geneva Convention which provides for non-refoulement of refugees
to unsafe countries. In one of several references to the potential
amendment of the Geneva Convention, it is suggested that:

"It may be wise to state this in a revised version
of the Geneva Convention" (p16)

Despite assurances as to the conditions in the proposed camps,
it is also suggested that:

"basic humanitarian assistance should not be significantly
higher than the local communities' resources otherwise it will
cause resentment" (p11)

Given the suggested locations for the "safe havens"
- North or West Africa (likely N. Somalia for S. Somalians; Morocco
for Algerians), Turkey (and potentially Iran and N. Iraq for
Iraqis and Kurds) and Europe (Ukraine for refugees from the east
of the enlarged EU's external border or possibly Albania) - it
has to wondered at the prospective conditions in the camps and,
moreover, how people denied entry to the West will react? Apparently
the only conclusion governments in Britain, Italy, Australia
and elsewhere have drawn from the riots, suicides and hunger
strikes in their domestic reception centres, is that out of sight
is out of mind.

"Coalition of the willing" to press ahead with
proposals?

The UK government realises the plans are unpalatable in many
quarters, but proposes a trial project of one or two camps/external
processing zones under the auspices of a "coalition of willing
states" - potentially including Australia, USA and Canada.

Moreover, the UK proposals builds on EU discussions from 1988,
when EU senior officials visited the Turkish government to discuss
financing such a camp (see Statewatch bulletin, vol 8 no 3).
The six Action Plans of the High Level Working Group on Immigration,
adopted at the Tampere summit (Finland, October 1999) also endorse
the principle of protection in the region (see Statewatch bulletin,
vol 9 no 5).

The Justice and Home Affairs Directorates of the European
Commission and EU Council have already held informal discussions
with UK Home Office during February and March, and the EU has
recently called on the Commission to:

"elaborate further on strengthening the use of development
cooperation in the search of solutions for refugees, in return
and reintegration, as well as local integration" (3)

No less telling is the fact the proposals are already on the
agenda of the next JHA Council meeting in June - before the outcome
of tomorrow's discussions are known.

It is as yet unclear whether the UNHCR can accept the proposals,
though Commissioner Ruud Lubbers is said to be privately enthusiastic.
Moreover, the UNHCR knows that if it does accept the role devised
for it, the IOM (International Organisation on Migration - an
intergovernmental organisation with no accountability within
the EU) is waiting willingly in the wings.

More "contamination" of the development agenda

The cooperation of countries to host "safe havens"
must also be secured. The UK proposals suggest that:

"Countries would be persuaded to host a safe haven
largely because they are probably dealing with a large refugee
population already. The best chance of success on this front
is if we can sell the programme as a real investment in that
region" (p11)

However, the way the programme will in fact be "sold"
to the targeted countries is more explicit later in the text:

"[At] every level of governance (domestic, EU, international)
in development, trade, conflict resolution and promotion of human
rights, the factor of reducing forced migration should be explicit
and played into the wider agendas of these objectives"
(p14)

The EU is already pursuing such an agenda. In June 2002, the
Seville European Council agreed upon the establishment of a single
body for General Affairs and External Relations. Gone is the
principle of Article 3 of the TEU which gives development policy
an independent role in foreign policy. It will now be considered
alongside security and defence and external trade and aid. This,
suggests a report commissioned by the European Parliament, "creates
a risk of development considerations being seen as less important,
even ignored" (4).

A number of examples suggest that this already happening.
For instance, the imposition of readmission obligations in the
Lomé and Cotonou Conventions on aid and trade between
the EU and 77 ACP states; proposals to sanction countries not
cooperating with EU (and US) Financial Intelligence Units on
the trail of terrorist cash; the potential inclusion of anti-terrorism
clauses in EU-third country agreements; and the recent Commission
communication on "integrating migration issues in the EU's
relations with third countries" (5).

Military action to combat refugee flows?

New Labour's "new vision" of migration control must
be seen in the context of wider doctrines of regime change, pre-emptive
strikes, crisis-management, peace-keeping and reconstruction:

"[Our] focus should be on ensuring that forced migration
is for a temporary period only [The] international community
must take action to resolve conflicts, and human rights abuse
and commit to post conflict reconstruction to enable sustainable
return. There is no international law permitting such intervention
and it is still highly controversial. Nevertheless, refugee flows
have been used in the past to justify intervention, for example
in Kosovo As a last resort, there needs to be military
intervention."

Notes

(1) "A new vision for refugees", UK government "restricted
policy", draft Final report, 5 February 2003

(2) Although the above document makes no mention of Albania,
media reports in early March suggest that it is part of government
thinking (e.g. The
Guardian, 11.3.03)

(3) 'Draft Council conclusions on Migration and Development',
Council of the EU document 6175/03, 7.2.03

(4) R. Pabst (2003) "The impact of 11 September 2001
on the developing countries and the implications for EU development
policy", European Parliament, DG Research Working Paper,
DEVE 106 EN 01/2003.

(5) COM (2002) 703, 3.12.02. For analysis of this document
see Statewatch European Monitor, vol 3, no 4 (Feb 2003).